Portal talk:Astronomy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Astronomy / Astronomical objects  (Rated Portal-class)
WikiProject icon Portal:Astronomy is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
 Portal  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.


Number Begins Ending Signature
Archive/1 2005-01-01 2007-12-31 Conrad T. Pino (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


it's a shame that this portal seems so neglected. no news, no updates... (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

2009 Renovation?[edit]

I am back from a longer hiatus, and I will try to "spruce up" this portal. It seems important that in this year WP shows its Astronomy related sections from its best side. Anybody else want to chip in? Right now, I'm fixing the batch mechanism that was disabled by older edits. Then a better layout may be a good project. Awolf002 (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


I'm saddened by the fact that this portal is very slow on news and such. To me it feels like there is a very very very small group of people dedicated to keeping it running... I'm not sure if I need to ask this but can I help with anything? (also could there be an article of the week instead of article of the month? I gladly manage it, but I'm not sure if I have the experience.) Marx01 Tell me about it 00:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Needs to be updated[edit]

I am not glad about this portal.

Article of the Week?[edit]

I think there should be an article of the week instead of an article of the month. I get rather tired seeing only one article feature per month. I would gladly manage such a system, but I'm not sure who is managing the current system, or how to manage it. Thanks for feedback --Marx01 Tell me about it 05:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Awolf002 is the current maintainer —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 11:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest! Please, help out if you can (see unanswered suggestions some sections above). However, I think it is harder to keep up with a weekly schedule than a monthly, and nothing makes a portal looks worse then red links. It is just about doable with images, where we've got hundreds. Good articles are much fewer in numbers! What would be helpful, is a more frequent update of the sections pointing to areas other people can help: The articles in peer review and featured article candidates. I just do not have time to keep this up, as I had a few years ago... But, feel free to come up with something new, and give it a try! Awolf002 (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll try and set up something which focuses on Articles Which are in Reason of being helped. One of the unavoidable problems with astronomy is you've got so many darn asteroids out there it's hard to write much about every single one! So I could make up a list of articles with a relative chance of reaching at least B-class. I will also look at a list of Good articles and Featured Article Candidates. Also Would you find it within reason to put this on the page:
Thought it might fit since it is the year of astronomy. Happy editing!
Marx01 Tell me about it 01:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
From this month I will not let any redlink to be in the images of the week.Extra999 (talk) 10:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Extra999 for this effort! Awolf002 (talk) 11:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Featured portal[edit]

I think it has reached a good standard and should be a featured portal. --Extra999 (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

NGC 6726, NGC 6727, NGC 6729, IC 4812 and NGC 6723

Cluster picture[edit]

Hi, I just wanted to tell that I uploaded one of the newest images of NASA's WISE project to WikiCommons. It shows NGC 6726, NGC 6727, NGC 6729, IC 4812 and NGC 6723. Unfortunately I forgot to give it a catchy name and to be honest I have no idea for a name either. Maybe one of you can rename it and has a great idea for use and name. Hive001 contact 15:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The name is almost perfect, and should be kept. But in order to easier find the pic on commons, it needs categorization, f.ex. astronony, IR, globular clusters, dust nebulae etc.. I'll see what I can do. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 06:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Mostly already done, obviously. I strictified star cluster to globular cluster and added reflection nebula. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 07:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:ConstellationsByBartsch[edit]

Template:ConstellationsByBartsch has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Please have your say! Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 09:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Astrological signs?[edit]

I propose that this new box be removed. Let's not confuse astronomy with astrology. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think the same as well. extra999 (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Agreeing. Pseudo-science has no place in a portal pertaining to a natural science. I reverted the addition twice, on the basis of its being off-topic and irrelevant. Each time it came right back. The originating editor was warned about edit warring and invited to use this talk page. A consensus for removal seems to be developing here. If that proves to be clearly the case, the astrology addition should be speedily removed. We might want to give the discussion a little time, to allow others to comment, but not too much time. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
all Signs in Astrology but 12 signs (30°+ 30° ...=360° of Ecliptic or zodiac) are in astronomy and Astrology. -- Hamedvahid (talk) 11:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Astronomers do not employ "signs" and astrology is not part of astronomy. Readers looking for information on astrology will find numerous articles and Portal:Astrology. A section on astrology does not belong here. Hertz1888 (talk) 11:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

[Copied from Hamedvahid's talk page] The problem is that the astrological signs are at best tangentially related to the science of astronomy. The astrological signs are distinct from the constellations (e.g. the constellations are crossed by the ecliptic in segments of various length, while the signs by definition divide the ecliptic into equal segments - not to mention that there exists the thirteenth ecliptical constellation, Ophiuchus, which does not correspond to an astrological sign). [This is discussed further in the article zodiac.] In general, astronomers regard astrology as pseudoscience. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

In fact This Astrological sign are the signs of starting the seasons of the year such as Spring (Vernal equinox) - Summer (Revolution Summer) - Autumn (autumnal equinox) - Winter (Revolution Summer). And are months of an almanac Astronomy. They are more astronomical. To a lesser degree. Astrological. Hamedvahid (talk) 09:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • What is "almanac astronomy"? Perhaps you mean that some almanac (which one?) included both astronomical phenomena and astrological signs. That doesn't mean that astrological signs are used in astronomy - it means that its author has conflated astronomy and astrology. (Indeed, in the past astronomy and astrology were largely indistinguishable.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
    • The very distant past. Hertz1888 (talk) 08:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
ok. I agree. tanks you for helping me. exquse me to i can not speake English vell. Hamedvahid (talk) 12:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Collapsar and Collapsar model[edit]

I am requesting input from those "in the know" about the difference between a collapsar (a stellar-mass black hole) and the collapsar model (a model of hypernova formation), if any. There is currently ambiguity in how these terms are used in astronomy articles. A clear definition should be established. What is the consensus opinion of the following?

The word collapsar, short for collapsed star, was formerly used to refer to the end product of stellar gravitational collapse (i.e. a Type II supernova), a stellar-mass black hole. The word is now sometimes used to refer to a specific model for the collapse of a fast-rotating star, as a hypernova.

Attention also needs to be given to the articles linked above, but also to related articles and redirects to these articles, Thank you for your help. Senator2029let's talk” 08:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

spectra of stars[edit]

I recorded some spectra of stars. They are listed on [1]. Some are quite usable, and I'm hoping to add more with improved quality in the future. Anyway, how do you like the idea of adding them to the articles about each star? It would be helpful, to label some lines, of course. --Duff06 (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


NML Cygni[edit]

Question moved to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#NML Cygni -- Moxy (talk) 08:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Could somebody pay attention to the 'Did you know...' about AL-Khazini[edit]

The 'Did you know...?' linking to Al-Khazini may need attention due to miss-used sources by Jagged 85 in the article referred to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Object naming convention[edit]

(Not sure if this is the right place for this question: feel free to move it if you know of a better place)

I recently created M82X-2 using the name found in both the Caltech and a NASA articles I used as sources. I also found there was an article on a similar object at M82 X-1. There is a link to this second page in the article on ULXs, where the name in the link is explicitly changed to M82-X1. I tried to find out if there was a convention on the use of spaces and dashes in such names, but was unable to find anything. It appears people just use whatever they feel like.

My questions:

  • Are there any standards on the use of spaces and dashes in names?
  • Should Wikipedia have one either way?

SkyLined (talk) 13:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I'm not an astronomy buff, but the Web favors the space in M82 X-1 37-to-1 and the space in M82 X-2 79-to-1. M82-X1 occurs half as often as M82X-1, making that explicit change look dubious. Unless there's an authoritative science source to the contrary, it seems that's the answer. It also seems unlikely the Web would disagree with an authoritative source, especially to such a large degree.
  • As a practical matter it would seem desirable to visually separate the object from the galaxy, which M82X-2 does not do.
  • Even non-buffs like myself are familiar with things like Cygnus X-1, and I've never seen it as CygnusX-1 or Cygnus-X1. Its article is Cygnus X-1 and it notes a common abbreviation Cyg X-1.
  • And finally, here are a few reliable sources for M82 X-2. There are more available via Google Search. The first two below are NASA and Caltech, showing that they are not consistent in their use of M82X-2.
The Space Reporter
Univ of Cambridge Inst of Astronomy ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 12:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinion. I'm not sure if a Google search qualifies as a standard though :). May I assume you agree with me that Wikipedia should have one regardless of whether one exists at all? I agree that M82 X-1 is easiest to read of the three options, and I also find it more logical in cases such as Cygnus X-1. (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC) (SkyLined, to lazy to log in)
I don't think Wikipedia should have a stated convention in this area. We name things according to their common names, and we let the rest of the world worry about consistency in naming. If the world is inconsistent, we are too. In this case, the world seems to be fairly consistent in naming astronomical objects such as this one. 97% of the Web prefers M82 X-1 to M82X-1, and 98% prefers M82 X-2 to M82X-2. Those are overwhelming majorities, and an extremely high degree of agreement. Besides, do you know of any other case where Wikipedia has an explicit naming convention for something in science? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Um, we definitely do have guidelines on naming astronomical objects: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical objects) Modest Genius talk 16:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with Mandruss' conclusions above. And while Google may not be considered authoritative, it does provide good insight into popular naming. If for some reason you're hesitant to make these changes yourself, SkyLined, I'll be more than happy to. Huntster (t @ c) 16:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
That sounds very reasonable. I'd like personally there to be a naming convention, used outside of Wikipedia as well. I understand Wikipedia is not the right place to introduce one if there is none. I'll move M82X-2 to M82 X-2 for now, leaving a redirect and update the page that explicitly mentions M82X-1. (FYI. I was thinking along the lines of the Manual of Style on large numbers, where we there's been numerous discussions before deciding upon a Wikipedia wide convention on spacing, bracketing, etc... as implemented in {{val}}) SkyLined (talk) 10:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
A number is not the name of something, so COMMONNAME doesn't apply. That's an MOS issue, as you indicated. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment this is the wrong place for the discussion, it should be at WT:ASTRO (first choice) or WT:AST (second choice). -- (talk) 12:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
The SIMBAD Dictionary of Nomenclature entry for X (scroll down to the second last entry) indicates that the scientifically correct way to write these is 'CCC X-N' where CCC is the (possibly abbreviated) name of the constellation or name of host galaxy, and N is a number. The page for ULX is even less clear, but says e.g. 'M74 X-N'. So, space before the X, and hyphen immediately afterwards. Modest Genius talk 16:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)